Tag: demand

  • Trump Can’t “Blanket” Deny UC Grants or Demand Payout

    Trump Can’t “Blanket” Deny UC Grants or Demand Payout

    A judge ordered federal agencies Friday to end their “blanket policy of denying any future grants” to the University of California, Los Angeles, and further ruled that the Trump administration can’t seek payouts from any UC campus “in connection with any civil rights investigation” under Titles VI or IX of federal law.

    The ruling also prohibits the Department of Justice and federal funding agencies from withholding funds, “or threatening to do so, to coerce the UC in violation of the First Amendment or Tenth Amendment.” In all, the order, if not overturned on appeal, stops the administration’s attempt to pressure UCLA to pay $1.2 billion and make multiple other concessions, including to stop enrolling “foreign students likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions or harassment” and stop “performing hormonal interventions and ‘transgender’ surgeries” on anyone under 18 at its medical school and affiliated hospitals.

    The administration’s targeting of the UC system came to the fore on July 29. That’s when the DOJ said its months-long investigations across the system had so far concluded that UCLA violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in its response to alleged antisemitism at a spring 2024 pro-Palestinian protest encampment.

    Federal agencies—including the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and Department of Energy—quickly began freezing funding; UC estimated it lost $584 million. But UC researchers sued and, even before Friday’s ruling, U.S. District Court judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California ordered the restoration of almost all of the frozen funding.

    Friday’s ruling came in a case filed this fall by the American Association of University Professors, the affiliated American Federation of Teachers and other unions. Lin again was the judge.

    “Defendants did not engage in the required notice and hearing processes under Title VI for cutting off funds for alleged discrimination,” she wrote.

    “With every day that passes, UCLA continues to be denied the chance to win new grants, ratchetting [sic] up Defendants’ pressure campaign,” she wrote. “And numerous UC faculty and staff have submitted declarations describing how Defendants’ actions have already chilled speech throughout the UC system. They describe how they have stopped teaching or researching topics they are afraid are too ‘left’ or ‘woke,’ in order to avoid triggering further funding cancellations by Defendants. They also give examples of projects the UC has stopped due to fear of the same reprisals. These are classic, predictable First Amendment harms, and exactly what Defendants publicly said that they intended.”

    Source link

  • Securing educational excellence may demand a new leadership compact

    Securing educational excellence may demand a new leadership compact

    When education leaders describe their institutions as being in “existential crisis” or on a “wartime footing,” you know that something important is happening.

    A new report, “Securing educational excellence in higher education at a time of change,” from Wonkhe and Advance HE, based on roundtable discussions with 11 institutional leaders, 15 principal fellows of Advance HE, and three student representatives held in March 2025, explores institutional interpretation of and responses to change, and asks what measures should be taken to secure educational excellence for what could be quite a different future.

    While institutions are understandably focused on managing their immediate pressures, with, in some cases, institutional survival at stake, sustainability means little without the long-term mission of inclusive, high-quality learning that prepares students for their future lives. While financial security would help, the changes higher education is navigating require a deeper consideration of how institutions make decisions, deploy expertise, and engage their communities.

    The report maps four critical tensions that leaders are navigating across the political, economic, social and technological domains: public trust versus sector autonomy; public good versus private return on investment; traditional academic community versus new student models; pace of technological change versus institutional capacity. A fifth tension emerges from this complex environment: a need for distributed leadership that allows for a deep knowledge of the issues versus clear lines of accountability for decisions. These tensions play out daily in everything that higher education institutions do.

    A wave of change

    In the political dimension, higher education is implicated in broader losses of confidence in institutions. Though not technically public services, universities occupy a distinctive position in British civic life: historically connected to the state, still partly publicly funded, yet operating with considerable autonomy. That hybrid status leaves higher education uniquely vulnerable to simultaneous public and policymaker scrutiny.

    Higher education institutions are not insulated from the broader political landscape. Student representatives in the research raised questions about institutional awareness: “Universities believe that students are exempt from the effects of public austerity…they believe we are creating a community of highly educated people, therefore they cannot fall for the tricks and stories that the media or certain political parties are trying to tell.”

    The economic tension is similarly complex. Universities are expected to deliver public benefits without reliable public funding, creating what one participant called a “competing interest” space where higher education struggles for resources against health and compulsory education. Meanwhile, students increasingly question whether their investment yields genuine value. “Students are being taught how to meet learning objectives, but they’re not being taught how to transfer the skills that they get during their time at university, or sometimes it feels like they’re not even being taught the skills that they need just by meeting the learning objectives,” one student representative observed.

    Principal fellows echoed some of this anxiety: “Students, particularly those from a widening participation background, can put generational money into getting an education which then doesn’t give them a job.” When the compact between investment and outcome seems to break down, trust may fracture, not just between students and institutions but also between society and the higher education project.

    Socially, traditional higher education campus communities are under pressure, with students increasingly time-poor, working to afford their studies, and many commuting rather than living on campus. Participants observed that many students approach higher education more transactionally – not necessarily because they’re mercenary, but possibly because they’re exhausted. As one principal fellow observed, “student” seems to have shifted from being a core identity to something people do alongside other things.

    Meanwhile, technology raises a host of strategic questions, not only in mustering the “right” response to generative AI but also in confronting how the pace of technological change reshapes the collective imaginary of how humans and machines interact in physical and digital spaces. This has implications for curriculum and pedagogy, equity and inclusion, and infrastructure and resources.

    Staff communities appear to have fractured, too. Professional services are “somewhere else in the university,” quick informal conversations have disappeared, and academics feel “fed up and tired and exhausted.” One principal fellow described what they saw as a vicious cycle: “We do not have communities in our universities anymore, and that then impacts the students as well…we don’t have engagement from the students. But also we don’t have engagement from the academics, because they’re in a mood all the time.”

    This fragmentation has strategic implications. When communities fragment, institutions may lose the collective capacity to sense problems, develop solutions, and sustain change. Everyone risks becoming reactive rather than proactive, protective rather than collaborative.

    Change as a capability

    Rather than seeking solutions or silver bullets, our conversations explored the institutional capabilities required to navigate these complex tensions and map out a sustainable way forward.

    One key insight emerging was about the diversity and richness of knowledge and expertise held within institutions that may not be routinely accessed in efforts to think about the future. Small executive teams may struggle to retain a grip on every aspect of the changing landscape or simply become bogged down in maintaining the day-to-day flow of decisions that keep institutions running. Under this kind of pressure, it might not be surprising that, as one principal fellow put it, “Leaders often talk too much and listen too little.”

    The report suggests leaders need to become curators of inclusive processes rather than authorities on every challenge. This would require the confidence to admit when situations are difficult and to seek help – a cultural shift that, if modelled from the top, could potentially reduce pressure on others to hide their struggles.

    Student representatives echoed this sense that efforts to consult or engage, if not well conceived, can sometimes be more alienating than empowering. One student leader suggested involving students in shaping the collective understanding of problems from the beginning, at which their experience and knowledge are most likely to make a meaningful contribution, rather than asking student representatives to comment on pre-developed expert solutions. The same principle could apply to higher education staff and stakeholders.

    There were also clear themes of the need for authenticity when professing an appetite for change and a pragmatic approach to resourcing it. Participants noted that institutions advertise for “innovators” and “change agents” but may not truly want them, or don’t adequately support them when they arrive. Change might require investment: stable contracts, professional development, and time for pedagogic innovation. “You can’t shift pedagogy if you don’t create time,” observed one principal fellow.

    In the technological domain, where there may be a belief that the issues are fundamentally about resourcing and retaining technical expertise, part of the question has to be about how technology reshapes staff and student experience and sustains or fragments human connection. One principal fellow observed that higher education’s “killer service” might be personal connection, not consumer-grade content production in an attention economy. However, delivering that would require investing in people, not just platforms.

    A question of purpose

    Among education leaders, there was a real recognition that higher education staff are “the most precious resource,” as one put it. Yet the changing landscape for higher education seems to be broadening the range of possible purposes for higher education, along with the range of stakeholders who feel entitled to a view about what educational excellence looks like.

    It is not hard to see how this changing dynamic can alienate academics working in disciplines who may perceive some of their core “knowledge stewardship” values and purposes as being under threat from political, economic, social, and technological changes in the external landscape driving different expectations of higher education.

    With an unknowable future, the answer is less about seeking certainties to cling to as about finding collective ways to navigate uncertainty. That might open up some uncomfortable propositions: that higher education’s purpose itself may need rearticulating; that trade-offs between competing goods must be explicitly managed; that excellent pedagogy might require resource investment even when budgets are tight; and that sustainable change may emerge more from dialogue than from executive decision-making.

    The full report repays careful reading, not just for its PEST analysis framework, which could help guide your own institutional conversations about change, but for the candour of participants grappling with genuine complexity. Higher education may face a “pivot point” – though the sector’s breadth, diversity, and expertise remain a considerable strength. Weathering the changes here right now and those on the horizon will depend to no small degree on institutional leadership capability to draw on that expertise to build a shared and collectively owned sense of educational excellence.

    This article is published in association with Advance HE. You can read and download the full Securing educational excellence at a time of change report here.

    Source link

  • Student suicides: why stable data still demand urgent reform 

    Student suicides: why stable data still demand urgent reform 

    Author:
    Emma Roberts

    Published:

    This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford. 

    New figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that student suicide rates in England and Wales for the period 2016 to 2023 remain stable – but stability is no cause for complacency. The age-adjusted suicide rate among higher education students stands at 6.9 deaths per 100,000, compared with 10.2 per 100,000 for the general population of the same age group. Over the seven years of data collection, there were 1,163 student deaths by suicide – that is around 160 lives lost every year. 

    The rate being lower than the wider population is encouraging and may reflect the investment the sector has made in recent years. Universities have developed more visible wellbeing services, invested in staff training and created stronger cultures of awareness around mental health. The relative stability in the data can be seen as evidence that these interventions matter. But stability is not a resolution. Each student suicide is a preventable tragedy. The data should therefore be read not as reassurance, but as a call to sustain momentum and prepare for the challenges that lie ahead. 

    What the ONS data tells us 

    The figures highlight some familiar patterns. Male students remain at significantly higher risk than female students, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all suicides. Undergraduate students are at greater risk than postgraduate students, while students living at home have the lowest suicide rate. The data also shows that rates among White students are higher than for Black or Asian students, though the sample sizes are small, so these figures may be less reliable. 

    In terms of trend, the highest rate was recorded in the 2019 academic year (8.8 per 100,000). Since then, the rate has fallen back but remains stubbornly consistent, with 155 deaths recorded in the most recent year. The ONS notes that these figures are subject to revision due to coroner delays, meaning even the latest year may be under-reported. 

    The key point is that the problem is not worsening, but it is also not going away. 

    A changing student demographic 

    This year’s recruitment trends have introduced a new variable. Several high-tariff providers (universities with the highest entry requirements) have reduced entry requirements in order to secure numbers. This can open up opportunities for students who might otherwise not have had access to selective institutions. But it does raise important questions about preparedness. 

    Students admitted through lower tariffs may bring with them different kinds of needs and pressures: greater financial precarity, additional academic transition challenges, or less familiarity with the social and cultural capital that selective universities sometimes assume. These are all recognised risk factors for stress, isolation and, in some cases, mental ill-health. Universities with little prior experience of supporting this demographic may find their existing systems under strain. 

    Building on progress, not standing still 

    Much good work is already being done. Many universities have strengthened their partnerships with local National Health Service (NHS) trusts, introduced proactive wellbeing campaigns and embedded support more visibly in the student journey. We should recognise and celebrate this progress. 

    At the same time, the ONS data is a reminder that now is not the moment to stand still. Stability in the numbers reflects the effort made – but it should also prompt us to ask whether our systems are sufficiently flexible and resilient to meet new pressures. The answer, for some institutions, may well be yes. For others, particularly those adapting to new student demographics, there is a real risk of being caught unprepared. 

    What needs to happen next 

    There are several constructive steps the sector can take: 

    • Stress-test provision:  
      Assess whether wellbeing and safeguarding structures are designed to support the needs of the current, not historic, intake. 
    • Broaden staff capacity:  
      Ensure that all staff, not just specialists, have the awareness and training to spot early warning signs so that distress does not go unnoticed. 
    • Strengthen partnerships:  
      Align more closely with local NHS and community services to prevent students falling between two in-demand systems. 
    • Share practice sector-wide:  
      Collectively learn across the sector. Good practice must be disseminated, not siloed. 

    These are not dramatic or expensive interventions. They are achievable and pragmatic steps that can reduce risk while broader debates about legal and regulatory reform continue. 

    Conclusion 

    The ONS data shows that student suicide is not escalating. But the rate remains concerningly consistent at a level that represents an unacceptable loss of life each year. The progress universities have made should be acknowledged, but the danger of complacency is real. As recruitment patterns shift and new student demographics emerge, the sector must ensure that safeguarding and wellbeing systems are ready to adapt. 

    Every statistic represents a life lost. Stability must not become complacency – it should be a call to action, a chance to consolidate progress, anticipate new challenges and keep the prevention of every avoidable death at the heart of institutional priorities. 

    Source link

  • Global demand for US master’s degrees plunges by 60%

    Global demand for US master’s degrees plunges by 60%

    The data, collected from January 6 to September 28, aligns closely with the start of Donald Trump’s second presidential term and the ensuing uncertainty around student visas and post-graduation work opportunities. It is based on the search behaviour of over 50 million prospective students on Studyportals.  

    “Prospective international students and their families weigh not only academic reputation but also regulatory stability and post-graduation prospects,” said Studyportals CEO Edwin van Rest: “Right now, those factors are working against institutions.”  

    Studyportals said the steep decline – dropping more than 60% in less than nine months – corresponds to proposed and enacted policy changes impacting student visa duration, Optional Practical Training (OPT) and H-1B work authorisation in the US. 

    Last week, the Trump administration shocked businesses and prospective employees by hiking the H-1B visa fee to $100,000 – over 20 times what employers previously paid. Days later, the government announced proposals to overhaul the visa system in favour of higher-paid workers.  

    Sector leaders have warned that OPT could be the administration’s next target, after a senior US senator called on the homeland security secretary Kristi Noem to stop issuing work authorisations such as OPT to international students.  

    Such a move would have a detrimental impact on student interest in the US, with a recent NAFSA survey suggesting that losing OPT reduces enrolment likelihood from 67% to 48%.  

    Meanwhile, roughly half of current students planning to stay in the US after graduation would abandon those plans if H-1B visas prioritised higher wage earners, the survey indicated.  

    “Prospective students are making go/no-go enrolment decisions, while current students are making stay/leave retention decisions,” said van Rest. 

    “Policy changes ripple through both ends of the pipeline, reducing new inflow and pushing out existing talent already contributing to US research, innovation and competitiveness,” he added.  

    Data: Studyportals

    The search data revealed a spike in interest at the beginning of July, primarily from Vietnam and Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent India and Pakistan. Experts have suggested the new Jardine-Fulbright Scholarship aimed at empowering future Vietnam leaders could have contributed to the rise.  

    Meanwhile, Iran, Nepal and India have seen the steepest drops in master’s demand, declining more than 60% this year to date compared to last.  

    While federal SEVIS data recorded a 0.8% rise in international student levels this semester, plummeting visa arrivals and anecdotal reports of fewer students on campus suggest the rise was in part due to OPT extensions – individuals who are counted in student totals but who are not enrolled on US campuses or paying tuition fees.  

    Beyond the immediate financial concerns of declining international enrolments for some schools, van Rest warned: “The policies we adopt today will echo for years in global talent flows.”

    The UK and Ireland have gained the most relative market share of international interest on Studyportals – both up 16% compared to the same period in 2024. Australia, Austria, Sweden and Spain all experienced a 12% increase on the previous year.  

    In the US, international students make up over half of all students enrolled in STEM fields and 70% of all full-time graduate enrolments in AI-related disciplines, according to Institute of International Education (IIE) data.  

    The policies we adopt today will echo for years in global talent flows

    Edwin van Rest, Studyportals

    What’s more, universities with higher rates of international enrolment have been found to produce more domestic STEM graduates, likely due to greater investment in these disciplines, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) research has shown.  

    Last year, graduate students made up 45% of the overall international student cohort (including OPT), compared to undergraduate which comprised roughly 30%, according to IIE Open Doors data.  

    Universities with higher proportions of overseas students have been found to produce more domestic STEM graduates, likely due to greater investment in these disciplines, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) research has shown. 

    The news of plummeting international demand comes as domestic enrolments are declining, with less high school graduates entering college education and an overall demographic shrinking of university-age students.  

    In a recent survey by the American Council on Education (ACE), nearly three quarters of college leaders said they were concerned about enrolment levels this semester, with 65% moderately or extremely worried about immigration restrictions and visa revocations.  

    Source link

  • George Mason University leader rebukes Trump administration’s apology demand

    George Mason University leader rebukes Trump administration’s apology demand

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    George Mason University President Gregory Washington’s lawyer on Monday firmly repudiated the Trump administration’s allegations that the public Virginia institution had violated civil rights law.

    Last week, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights alleged that George Mason’s hiring and promotion practices violated Title VI, which bans federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin. An agency official singled out Washington as the leader of a “university-wide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race,” and the department demanded that he apologize.

    In an 11-page letter to the college’s governing board sent on Washington’s behalf, his attorney Douglas Gansler called OCR’s allegations “a legal fiction,” and stressed that George Mason’s leadership has kept the university in compliance with federal law. “Far from needing to apologize, you all have a shared record to be proud of,” he wrote.

    Since July, the Trump administration has opened at least four investigations into George Mason, targeting the large research institution over universitywide diversity initiatives, of which Washington has been a champion.

    The Education Department’s findings came just six weeks after the agency opened the investigation, citing a complaint from “multiple professors at GMU” alleging that the university’s leaders had approved policies illegally giving certain underrepresented groups preferential treatment since 2020.

    Gansler called out the brief length of the agency’s investigation and said OCR’s letter shows that federal officials “have not spent sufficient time finding critical and materials facts.”

    “It is glaringly apparent that the OCR investigation process has been cut short, and ‘findings’ have been made in spite of a very incomplete fact-finding process, including only two interviews with university academic deans,” Gansler wrote.

    Since January, George Mason has renamed its diversity, equity and inclusion center and cut or restructured DEI-related positions to comply with federal directives, he also noted.

    The Education Department’s announcement last week focused much of its ire on Washington, alleging the university president’s prior statements were proof of “support for racial preferencing.”

    But some of the department’s evidence was out-of-context or “gross mischaracterizations of statements made by Dr. Washington” that didn’t lead to policy changes, Gansler wrote. And one contested policy would have predated Washington’s tenure, he argued.

    In one example, the Education Department quoted a 2021 statement from Washington on adopting an inclusive hiring framework.

    “If you have two candidates who are both ‘above the bar’ in terms of requirements for a position, but one adds to your diversity and the other does not, then why couldn’t that candidate be better, even if that candidate may not have better credentials than the other candidate?” Washington said at the time.

    Gansler said the quote was pulled out of context and never resulted in a policy being enacted.

    “His question was just that: a question, offered to provoke dialogue within the university community, as should be expected of a faculty member and academic leader of a university,” the attorney wrote. “The question does not suggest hiring minority candidates of lesser credentials, but rather considering how two equally qualified candidates may contribute differently to the campus.”

    He added that Washington is not directly involved in evaluating candidates for faculty positions and that OCR would be unable to cite “any discriminatory hiring decision made based on it.”

    It is glaringly apparent that the OCR investigation process has been cut short, and “findings” have been made in spite of a very incomplete fact-finding process.

    Douglas Gansler

    Attorney for George Mason University President Gregory Washington

    The Education Department gave George Mason 10 days to voluntarily agree to a proposal it said would resolve the alleged violations. Part of that proposal would require Washington to publicly apologize to the university community “for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes.”

    In response, Gansler advised George Mason’s trustees against agreeing to the Education Department’s demand for an apology.

    Source link

  • What Fields of Study Are Driving International Demand in the UK?

    What Fields of Study Are Driving International Demand in the UK?

    There will be a short-pause in HEPI blogs as we undertake some work on the website. We look forward to delivering blogs to your inbox again later next week.

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Justin Woods, Director UK of ApplyBoard

    As the UK sector anticipates new policy requirements and tighter scrutiny around post-study pathways, aligning programme offerings with student demand has never been more important. Yet, international students bring a wide range of goals and preferences to their study decisions. How can institutions support under-enrolled programmes while continuing to attract high-quality applicants?

    Entrant data from the 2023/24 academic year points to some clear shifts, including a higher proportion of international students enrolling in computing/IT and health and medicine.Examining these enrolment patterns by source market and field can help institutions stay aligned with evolving demand.

    Computing and Health Made Up a Larger Share of Entrants to the UK in 2023/24

    International student demand in the UK evolves in small but meaningful ways. In 2023/24, more students chose to begin their studies in computing/IT and health and medicine, fields that offer clear links to employment and future skill needs.

    The overall field of study mix among international students in the UK has remained fairly stable since the pandemic, but subtle shifts are beginning to take shape. The share of entrants in computing/IT was up three percentage points in 2023/24 compared to 2019/20. While modest, this represents a change of several thousand more students choosing this field of study. Health and medicine also remained strong in 2023/24, accounting for more than 11% of new starters.

    This trend mirrors developments in the UK labour market. The country’s tech sector now exceeds £1.2 trillion in market value. Meanwhile, NHS staffing shortages remain a pressing concern, with recent estimates pointing to a shortfall of over 10,000 nurses. As students assess where their UK education might lead them, it is likely that domestic labour shortages and growth sectors are shaping the value students perceive in certain programmes. Indeed, when ApplyBoard asked prospective students about their post-study career plans, ‘engineer’ and ‘nurse’ were the two most popular responses, with several tech jobs (such as IT, cybersecurity, and data analysis) appearing in the top 20 as well.

    UCAS data for the June 30, 2025 deadline shows that 4,700 international undergraduate students applied for a nursing programme, 19% higher than the 2024 deadline.

    Which Student Populations are Driving Demand in Computing/IT and Health and Medicine?

    While computing/IT and health and medicine made up 10% and 11% of all international entrants in 2023/24, several student populations pursued these fields at significantly higher rates:

    table visualization

    Computing/IT is a top study priority for several key student populations. Nearly one-in-five international students from Myanmar entering the UK in 2023/24 pursued a computing/IT field, more than double the all-market average. Other student populations with notably high engagement in this field of study include those from Qatar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and India, all of which had 14% or more of their new UK entrants choose computing/IT. All told, these trends show a broad pattern of interest among students across South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

    Some emerging markets (between 500 and 1,000 entrants in 2023/24) with a high proportion of students entering computing/ITinclude Algeria (23%), Uzbekistan (15%), Morocco (14%), and Bahrain (12%).

    Health and medicine shows a comparable trend, with a different mix of student populations driving above-average interest:

    table visualization

    Health and medicine draws above-average interest from a globally distributed set of student markets. Students from Ireland, Hong Kong, and Canada were especially likely to enter health and medicine programmes in 2023/24, with one in four entrants from each market choosing this field. Other high-interest markets span the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Southern Europe, underscoring a wide geographic appeal of health-related fields.

    Some emerging markets (between 500 and 1,000 entrants in 2023/24) with a high proportion of students entering health and medicineinclude the Philippines (38%), Zimbabwe (30%), Jordan (19%), and Belgium (19%).

    What Fields of Study do the UK’s Largest International Student Populations Pursue?

    Field of study preferences don’t just vary by market. They also take on different significance when viewed through the lens of student volume. Looking at the UK’s largest international student populations helps reveal which programmes are driving demand at scale.

    chart visualization

    Business and law continues to dominate among high-volume source markets, particularly in South Asia. In 2023/24, over half of new students from India and Pakistan entered this field. For China, on the other hand, business and law enrolment has declined steadily. Instead, arts, social sciences, and humanities has become the top choice among students from China, accounting for nearly 38% of entrants in 2023/24.

    Engineering and technology, once popular across multiple markets, has seen a notable decline. The field accounted for 12% of international entrants from India in 2019/20 but just 7% in 2023/24. A similar drop occurred among Pakistani students. However, with the UK launching a £54 million recruitment strategy to attract global research talent from the US in June, we expect this field to see somewhat of a rebound over the next couple of years.

    Even ashealth and medicine has received increased attention across the UK sector, its performance among the largest student populations remains steady. Indeed, Nigeria and the US remain strong contributors, with 15% of new students entering this field. As institutions prepare for further sectoral reforms and anticipate post-White Paper adjustments, maintaining a steady corridor into healthcare-aligned programmes and post-graduate opportunities could prove especially important in safeguarding both student outcomes and national workforce goals.

    Aligning Your Institution With What’s Next

    Programme-level shifts in international demand rarely happen all at once, but they matter more than ever in today’s climate of policy change and increasing scrutiny. Institutions that respond early to evolving student priorities will be better positioned to sustain enrolment, diversify their cohorts, and meet labour-aligned goals.

    Source link

  • International Student Demand Remains High for Now

    International Student Demand Remains High for Now

    Despite federal attitudes and policies toward international students, demand to study in the U.S. remains high.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Getty Images

    Advocates for international students are raising alarms that federal actions are limiting foreign-born learners’ ability to study in the U.S. But researchers say the trend isn’t an indication of international student interest or demand to study in the U.S.

    A late July survey of 300 foreign-born students found 91 percent plan to study in the U.S., despite funding cuts and internal instability in the U.S. The reputation of U.S. institutions also has yet to take a hit, with 99 percent of respondents indicating they still trust the academic quality of U.S. institutions.

    That’s not to say students are unaware of or undeterred by changes at the federal level. Fifty-five percent of survey respondents indicated some level of concern about pursuing their degree in the U.S., and 50 percent said they’re less excited about the opportunity now than they were previously. The top reason their sentiment has changed is international tensions or politics (54 percent), followed by worries about political instability in the U.S. (45 percent).

    Brian Meagher, vice president at Shorelight, a higher education consulting group focused on international students, said at an Aug. 12 media roundtable that even students caught in the visa backlog haven’t shifted their gaze to other countries yet. Instead, they are deferring to the spring semester. May data from the U.S. Department of State shows 19,000 fewer students received a F-1 or J-1 visa that month compared to May 2024, which experts say is the first sign that a fraction of expected students will be coming to campus this fall.

    “Most of them want [to study in] the U.S.—they’re not changing their minds to the U.K. or Canada or Australia,” Meagher said. “We do think there will be a longer-term impact on switching to other country destinations as a result of this.”

    Others are taking classes online at their host institution or enrolling in a satellite campus elsewhere in the world for their first term, but those are less popular options, Meagher said.

    “In talking with prospective students, I’d say the belief is that this is a temporary changeover at an unfortunate time that may result in missing a fall semester,” Shorelight CEO Tom Dretler said during the roundtable.

    Long-Term Challenges Expected

    While international students see the changes as a short-term setback, some market predictions forecast significant changes to U.S. higher education enrollment and revenue. At least the lack of visas could impact future applications to U.S. colleges, Dretler said.

    Research by Holon IQ, a global intelligence agency, points to the U.S. as a top destination country for international students for decades, but since 2016—roughly the start of the first Trump administration—the country lost 10 percentage points of its share of international students.

    Starting in 2016, “the U.S. became perceived by some as less welcoming or safe, did not recruit international students as energetically, and denied a substantial fraction of student visa applications, while governments and university sectors in the other countries acted in concert to grow international student numbers,” according to an August report from Holon IQ.

    Modeling by Holon IQ finds that a variety of actions by the federal government, including visa policy changes, a crackdown on universities and new tariffs could create barriers to students in the U.S. as well as a climate of uncertainty for prospective students.

    The agency predicts the most likely trajectory is there will be a short-term decline in U.S. international enrollment, with 1.12 million students in 2030, unchanged from 2023 levels. But possible scenarios range from an increase in students of 8.3 percent to a drop of 7.9 percent by 2030.

    “I think what’s happening in the U.S. is a point in time as to whether the U.S. will continue to lead and for how long it will continue to remain the global leader for international student mobility and a desired study destination,” said Patrick Brothers, co-CEO of Holon IQ Global Impact Intelligence, during the media roundtable.

    Paying the Price

    Experts warn that a lack of students on campus could mean billions in lost tuition revenue for years to come.

    NAFSA, the association of international educators, reported if the number of new international student enrollment declined between 30 and 40 percent, it would result in a 15 percent drop in overall international enrollment and result in a loss of $7 billion in revenue.

    June data from Shorelight found even a 20 percent decline would result in a $1.7 billion annual loss in tuition revenue, or $5 billion over four years.

    “We think it’s going to be something that is negative for the U.S. economy, negative from a jobs perspective and also very hurtful to colleges and universities, but not always the one that people think,” Dretler said. Top universities will be able to weather the financial hit, pulling students off their waiting lists, but regional and community colleges will experience greater losses, which could increase tuition rates for middle-class families.

    States with high international student enrollment would be hit hardest by the changes. Among the top states for international students—California, New York and Texas—Shorelight anticipates a total loss of $566.6 million and NAFSA projects a loss of $2.39 billion, based on their respective data models.

    Source link

  • District Court Judge Continues to Demand OCR Reinstate Staff

    District Court Judge Continues to Demand OCR Reinstate Staff

    The Office for Civil Rights handles complaints concerning discrimination in federally funded education institutions.

    Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

    A federal district court judge refused the Trump administration’s request to vacate a previous ruling that prohibited the Department of Education from laying off nearly half its Office for Civil Rights staff.

    The decision was made by Massachusetts judge Myong Joun on Wednesday and involved the case Victim Rights Law Center v. Department of Education. It comes just a month after the Supreme Court reversed a preliminary injunction in a similar case, New York v. McMahon, which Joun also oversaw. 

    In the new order, the district court judge argues that the cases, and therefore their related rulings, are separate. 

    The New York case, which was filed by multiple state attorneys general, addressed the reduction in force more broadly, Joun said. By comparison, the Victim Rights Law Center case more specifically addresses the RIF at OCR and how it may hold the office back from completing its statutory mandate of protecting students from discrimination.

    So, although the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to continue with the reduction in force broadly, Joun argues, it does not mean the enjoinment of layoffs within OCR is no longer applicable.

    Trump officials “present two arguments for why vacatur or a stay are appropriate: first, that the Supreme Court granted the stay in a related case, and second, that the two related cases are ‘indistinguishable in all pertinent respects.’ I am unconvinced by either argument,” Joun wrote. “Although this case and New York are related, I issued a separate Preliminary Injunction Order to address the unique harms that Plaintiffs alleged arose from their reliance on the OCR.”

    He also noted that even though the high court judges reversed one preliminary injunction, that does not mean they have made a final ruling on the merit of the RIF.

    Finally, Joun went on to say that the defendants’ motion for stay has little standing, as “they have not substantially complied with the preliminary injunction order” in the first place. Reporting from The 74 backs this up, showing that none of the 276 fired OCR employees have been reinstated.

    Source link

  • Universities Meet Just a Fraction of Demand for AI Training

    Universities Meet Just a Fraction of Demand for AI Training

    Interest in artificial intelligence training is soaring, but only a fraction of the demand is being met by higher education, according to a new report.

    Nearly 57 million people in the U.S. are interested in learning AI-based skills—with about 8.7 million currently learning, the higher education marketing and research firm Validated Insights estimates.

    Two-thirds of them are doing so independently through videos, online reading and other learning resources, and a third are doing so via a structured and supervised learning program. However, just 7,000 (0.2 percent) are learning AI via a credit-bearing program from a higher education institution.

    This is despite enrollment in AI courses growing quickly in recent years. According to the report, the first bachelor’s degree in the subject was launched by Carnegie Mellon University in 2018.

    Over the next five years, enrollment in AI programs at colleges and universities grew 45 percent annually. The report found that approximately 1 percent of institutions now offer a master’s degree in AI, 2.5 percent a bachelor’s degree and 3 to 5 percent offer a nondegree program.

    SUNY’s University at Buffalo saw enrollment in its master’s degree in AI grow over 20 times from 2020 to 2024, from five to 103 students.

    “Based on the data, there was sizable existing interest and demand for professional and workplace education and training in AI and AI-related areas, but we probably haven’t seen anything yet,” said Brady Colby, head of market research at Validated Insights.

    “According to survey data and hiring trends, this market, the AI education and training market, is positioned for incredible, maybe explosive, growth.”

    Validated Insights said ed-tech companies have seized the opportunity and are serving more than 99 percent of those looking to upskill in AI. Just 14 months after the launch of ChatGPT, enrollment in generative AI courses on platforms like Coursera and Udemy had grown to 3.5 million.

    “Given the expected very high demand for learning AI, that so few existing learners are in credit programs is an important thing to know,” said Colby.

    “It’s not necessarily a warning for colleges and universities as it may be a blast of opportunity. If for-credit, degree-granting institutions can sync their programs and reach this massive pool of interested students, the rewards could be excessive—for the students and schools alike.”

    Estimates published by Statista suggest that the aggregate market for AI in the U.S. in 2025 is worth $74 billion.

    Source link

  • Reflections on the demand for higher education – and what UCAS data reveal ahead of Results Day 2025

    Reflections on the demand for higher education – and what UCAS data reveal ahead of Results Day 2025


    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Maggie Smart, UCAS Director of Data and Analysis

    As we pass the 30 June deadline for this year’s undergraduate admissions cycle, UCAS’ data offers an early view of applicant and provider behaviour as we head into Confirmation and Clearing. It also marks a personal milestone for me, as it’s my first deadline release since rejoining UCAS. I wanted to take a deeper look at the data to reflect on how much things have changed since I worked here 10 years ago.

    Applicant demand has always been shaped by two key elements: the size of the potential applicant pool, and their propensity to apply. Since I last worked at UCAS in 2016, these two factors have continuously interchanged over the better part of the past decade – sometimes increasing or decreasing independently but often counterbalancing each other. Let’s take a look at how things are shaping up this year.

    Overall, by the 30 June there have been 665,070 applicants (all ages, all domiciles) this year, compared to 656,760 (+1.3%) in 2024. This is an increase in applicants of over 64,000 since UCAS last reported in January, although the profile of these additional applicants is very different. At the January Equal Consideration Deadline (ECD), over half of the total number of applicants were UK 18-year olds, who are the most likely group to have applied by that stage in the cycle. They represent just 8% of the additional applicants since January, among a much larger proportion of UK mature and international students.

    As we saw at January, the differences in demand for places between young people from the most advantaged (POLAR4 Quintile 5) and most disadvantaged (POLAR4 Quintile 1) areas at June remain broadly the same as last year – with the most advantaged 2.15 times more likely to apply to HE than those from the least advantaged backgrounds, compared to 2.17 last year.

    UK 18-year-old demand

    Demand for UK higher education (HE) has long been shaped by the 18-year-old population – the largest pool of applicants. Despite the well-known challenges facing the HE sector at present, at the 30 June deadline we see record numbers of UK 18-year-old applicants, with 328,390 applicants this year – up from 321,410 (+2%) in 2024. This trend was almost entirely locked in by the January deadline, given the vast majority of UK 18-year-old applicants have applied at this stage in the cycle.

    During my previous tenure at UCAS, the size of the UK 18-year-old population had been falling year on year but from 2020, it began to increase. This continued growth drives the increase in UK 18-year-old applicant numbers we have observed in recent cycles. But when we look at their overall application rate to understand the strength of demand among this group, the data shows a marginal decline again this year – down to 41.2% from 41.9% in 2024. The historically strong growth in the propensity of UK 18-year-olds to apply for HE, which we’ve observed across the last decade, has clearly plateaued.

    This could be due to a range of factors, such as young people choosing to take up work or an apprenticeship, or financial barriers. We know that cost of living is increasingly influencing young people’s decisions this year, with pre-applicants telling us that financial support – such as scholarships or bursaries – ranks as the second most important consideration for them (46%), followed closely by universities’ specific cost-of-living support (34%).

    Interesting to note is the number of UK 19-year-old applicants. When separating the data to distinguish 19-year-olds applying for the first time (as opposed to those reapplying), there has been a decent increase – from 46,680 last year to 48,890 this year (+4.7%). For many years, the number of first-time UK 19-year-old applicants had been falling year on year, but since 2023 this trend has started to reverse. This suggests that demand among young people may be holding up as they decide to take a year out before applying to university or college.

    Mature students

    For UK mature students (aged 21+), the picture looks very different. The number of mature students applying to university or college ebbs and flows depending on the strength of the job market, so since I was last at UCAS, we have typically seen applications decrease when employment opportunities are strong and vice versa. Alongside fluctuations linked to the employment market, rising participation at age 18 means there is a smaller pool of potential older applicants who have not already entered HE. The falling demand from mature students continues in 2025, although in recent years there have been small but significant increases in the volume of mature applicants applying after the 30 June deadline and directly into Clearing. 

    As of this year’s 30 June deadline there have been 86,310 UK mature (21+) applicants, compared to 89,690 (-3.8%) in 2024, meaning a fall in demand compared to the previous year at this point in the cycle for the fourth year in a row. However, whereas at the January deadline mature applicants were down 6.4% compared to the same point last year, at June the figure is only 3.8% down showing some recovery in the numbers. This is another indication that mature students are applying later in the cycle. While it remains too early to say whether we will see continued growth in mature direct to Clearing applicants in 2025, last year 9,390 UK mature students who applied direct to Clearing were accepted at university or college, an increase of 7.4% on 2023 and 22.7% higher than 2022.

    International students

    When looking at the UCAS data through the lens of international students, the landscape has changed significantly since 2016. Brexit led to a sharp decline in EU applicants, offset by strong growth elsewhere, the pandemic caused disruption to international student mobility, and we’ve seen intensified global competition, shifting market dynamics and geopolitics which are increasingly influencing where they choose to study. This year we’re seeing growth once more, with 138,460 international applicants compared to 135,460 in 2024 (+2.2%) – although this stood at +2.7% at January. It should be noted that UCAS does only see a partial view of undergraduate international admissions (we tend to get a more complete picture by the end of the cycle) and we don’t capture data on postgraduate taught and research pathways.

    Interest among Chinese students in UK education has held firm since my time at UCAS, and this year we’re seeing a record number of applicants from China – 33,870, up from 30,860 (+10%) in 2024. This year’s data also shows increases in applicants from Ireland (6,060 applicants, +15%), Nigeria (3,170 applicants, +23%) and the USA (7,930 applicants, +14%). 

    Offer-making

    We are releasing a separate report on offer-making this year, alongside the usual data dashboard for applications. This additional data covers offers and offer rates over the past three years, from the perspective of applicants according to their age and where they live, and from the perspective of providers by UK nation and tariff group.

    What we’re seeing as the natural consequence of increased applications this year is an uplift in offers. Universities have made more offers than ever before this year, with 2.0 million main scheme offers to January deadline applicants overall, largely driven by the rise in UK 18-year-olds applicants (who are the most likely to use their full five choices while applying). This record high surpasses the previous peak of 1.9 million offers set last year (+3.8%).

    While the main scheme offer rate has increased across all provider tariff groups, the most notable uplift is for higher tariff providers – up 3.2 percentage points to 64.4% this year.  Despite the increase in offer rates, higher tariffs do still remain the lowest, partly due to being the most selective institutions. Offer rates by medium and lower tariff providers have also increased, by 0.9 percentage points to 77.0% among medium tariff providers, and by 1.5 percentage points to 81.7% among lower tariff providers. This means that, among those who applied by the Equal Consideration Deadline in January, 72.5% of main scheme applications received an offer this year, also a record high, and 1.8 percentage points higher than in 2024.

    It’s worth noting that we’ll be updating our provider tariff groupings in time for the 2026 cycle, to reflect changes in the higher education landscape.

    Looking ahead

    For students who are intent on going to university or college, it makes this a very good year, with more opportunities than ever before. A record 94.5% of students who applied by the January deadline will be approaching the critical summer period having received at least one offer. High levels of offer-making by universities and colleges typically translates into more acceptances, which should give applicants plenty of confidence heading into results day. 

    I’m delighted to be back at UCAS, and my team will continue to dig further into the data as Confirmation and Clearing draws nearer to see how demand translates into accepted places come results day.

    UCAS

    UCAS, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, is an independent charity, and the UK’s shared admissions service for higher education.

    UCAS’ services support young people making post-18 choices, as well as mature learners, by providing information, advice, and guidance to inspire and facilitate educational progression to university, college, or an apprenticeship.

    UCAS manages almost three million applications, from around 700,000 people each year, for full-time undergraduate courses at over 380 universities and colleges across the UK.

    UCAS is committed to delivering a first-class service to all our beneficiaries — they’re at the heart of everything we do.

    Source link